The symphony of the Parliament elected in 1990 is coming to its logical end. The main topics with their various shades are already made, the soloists repeatedly demonstrated their talent with prolonged solos, while a five-year pause was provided for some of them. The final sounds, the last part, but still it is not clear as to how the work will end, with arrogant majeure chords (with serious discussion of the draft constitution), or the finale will remind Joseph Haydn’s “Farewell Symphony,” when the musicians gradually leave the stage, leaving only two violinist in the end who play a sad and melancholic tune.
To note that such an attempt has already been made: on December of last year, minority-comprising MPs left the stage trying to create an alternative parliament, PM, but this demarche did not lead to particularly impressive results. But the psychological character of PM soloists should also be taken into account: like the pilot can not live without rising to the air, so do they have no life without the microphone, which helps them to voice solos caressing their own ear.
Can you imagine, for example, Arshak Sadoyan not to talk about every single issue for 6-7 times. I, for example, cannot imagine. Of course, TV and radio broadcasts of parliamentary soloists are not so many for such a productive orator. An evidence, on Wednesday, the unique duet between Arshak Sadoyan and Karapet Rubinyan on TV broadcast, which reminded of Panikovski and Shura Balaganov dialogue: “Who are you”, “And who are you”, and so on.
It seems that the Constitution should be the subject of this debate, as well as parliamentary debates. But some MPs are not interested in the provisions of the main law at all, they can have the same speeches regarding the telephone book. No matter our Constitution is despotic or democratic, no matter the state system is presidential or parliamentary, they are, of course, extremely important issues. But, another thing is quite obvious: if the level of intellect and culture of our MPs, government officials and politicians be as nowadays, no perfect constitution will provide the social progress.
Read also
The former ANM members (NDU and NA) are getting more aggressive and intolerant position in the debates, whose task is to demarcate their own party. As it is known, in Asian countries, the kings were having special punitive detachments of janissaries, which were treating their own people in more severe and inhumane way. Approximately similar logic is functioning with ANM’s “sectarian”.
We need to understand and humanly forgive our MPs. In fact, for many of them the debate of the Constitution may be the last chance of coming out to Mejliss, the swan song. Try to relive the psychic indignation of a man, who thinks: “I will never, o, never approach this desired microphone, and would not be able to show my unyielding principles and high moral character to everyone.”
Aram Abrahamyan,
5.05.1995.
